Dexing wrote:This point has been disagreed upon for over 20 pages. People have been saying it is totally wrong to say that external objects don't exist when you can obviously see, touch, hear, smell, and taste them.... which is the fundamental mistake- thinking you can see, hear, smell, and so on, external objects.

And so we are back full circle.

As your previous post explained very well...

"These "objects of consciousness" are merely colors, sounds, fragrances, flavors, tactile sensations and concepts based upon them. Therefore, the so-called "external objects" we refer to are interpretations of our sensations, not actual objects. It's very plain to see."

Nobody would dispute that what we conceptualise as "table" is not the reality of it, the concept contains a collection of characteristics, and components, and assumptions about it's uses that we roll up into the concept "table".

But to then say, as you appear to be in the above quote, that because of the above there is nothing there at all, there is just illusion, there is just figment of our imagination, the componants of the table don't exist, the characteristics don't exist, the matter doesn't exist, the conditions that cause our senses to perceive don't exist. Then yes, that would be a mistake.

At the end of the day "table" isn't the best example, one doesn't gain insight through understanding the nature of "table", one gains insight through understanding the nature of mind.

“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.” ― Ajahn Chah

Goofaholix wrote:But to then say, as you appear to be in the above quote, that because of the above there is nothing there at all, there is just illusion, there is just figment of our imagination, the componants of the table don't exist, the characteristics don't exist, the matter doesn't exist, the conditions that cause our senses to perceive don't exist. Then yes, that would be a mistake.

I'm saying the components of the table don't exist "out there", but are subjective creations within the mind only. Characteristics can't be applied to an actual "table". The characteristics and components are merely colors, sounds, fragrances, etc. which are only created in the mind. These characteristics create the illusion of matter when attached to out of ignorance. In Chinese it is called 名言, name and speech- a concept and a few words to describe it. That's the totality of this so called external reality attached to by ordinary beings.

The condition that causes our senses to perceive as ordinary beings and attach to perceptions as real external reality is fundamental ignorance. It's not a thing to exist or not exist.

alan wrote:Dex,If your point of view is not to be found in the Pali texts, it may be because such ideas did not exist at the time.

I have found some places in Theravada where it seems implicit, whereas later Mahayana teachings are more explicit. Which strengthens the idea of teaching in a purposely sequential manner according to the audience.

Dexing wrote:I've also been asking for someone to share Theravada teachings that either say what I've been saying, or say it is wrong. No one has been able to do that. They just keep saying to the effect of "you're wrong"....

Maybe you can help share some Pali texts to this point then?

I'd be happy to show you that you are quite wrong about the Pali suttas, but I'd like you to address the issues I have been puting to you and you have been ignoring.

tiltbillings wrote:

Dexing wrote:As for your first question, perhaps you are more familiar with the Pali Suttas than I. Are external objects or the Form Aggregate for example ever refuted in Theravada as not being objective existence?

Interestingly, you have criticized and characterized the Theravada and the Pali suttas in terms of the Mahayana polemic against what the Mahayana calls the hinayana, but you seem not to have a real handle on what is found in the Pali suttas. In terms of realization, in terms of practice, show us where in the Pali suttas the Buddha talks about “objectively existing” khandhas?

As for your second question, it is only related to the overall question of this thread if Tathagata has the same meaning between Theravada and Mahayana, as Arahant. I think Arahant has the same meaning and same level of attainment in both, it is just that the attainment and level of a Buddha is expanded in Mahayana, leaving the Arahant with a little more left to accomplish, while their accomplishment is still equal to a Buddha's accomplishment in that respect.

And this nicely makes my point. The Mahayana - based upon what? - has, to use your word, “expanded” - that is, redefined - the definition of what it is to be a Buddha, putting, within their system, the arahant in a lesser position, which is itself a redefining of what it is to be an arahant. In other words, the words “Buddha” and “arahant” may be cognate between the two traditions, but that hardly means they carry the same meaning. And even within the Mahayana as a whole these terms carry differing meanings as differing Mahayanists “expanded” what they mean by these things.

So, the point is, given that the Mahayana has “expanded” the meanings of these terms, they are no longer talking about what the Pali suttas are talking about, which is to say that Mahayana critique has no bearing upon the Pali suttas, which means it cannot meaningfully critique or even talk about in any objective way the Theravada - apples and watermelons.

tiltbillings wrote:

Dexing wrote:This is the very problem I'm trying to address. You think you can see, hear, smell, taste and touch external objects.

Dexing wrote:I'm saying the components of the table don't exist "out there", but are subjective creations within the mind only. Characteristics can't be applied to an actual "table". The characteristics and components are merely colors, sounds, fragrances, etc. which are only created in the mind. These characteristics create the illusion of matter when attached to out of ignorance. In Chinese it is called 名言, name and speech- a concept and a few words to describe it. That's the totality of this so called external reality attached to by ordinary beings.

If the characteristics are created by mind, and 1,000,000 people perceive a table and 99% of them (excepting those who are colour blind) perceive it as blue, why is it that they perceive the same characteristic each with their own minds?

Now if you you were to say they each have a different subjective experience of blue, some like blue some don't for example, I'd agree. But to say they all created the characteristic blue in their minds and that there was no stimulus for this and nothing that caused them to perceive much the same characteristic is just silly.

Dexing wrote:The condition that causes our senses to perceive as ordinary beings and attach to perceptions as real external reality is fundamental ignorance. It's not a thing to exist or not exist.

Agreed, attachment to perceptions is fundamental ignorance, but that doesn't mean there is nothing to be perceived.

“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.” ― Ajahn Chah

Dexing wrote:I'm saying the components of the table don't exist "out there", but are subjective creations within the mind only. Characteristics can't be applied to an actual "table". The characteristics and components are merely colors, sounds, fragrances, etc. which are only created in the mind. These characteristics create the illusion of matter when attached to out of ignorance. In Chinese it is called 名言, name and speech- a concept and a few words to describe it. That's the totality of this so called external reality attached to by ordinary beings.

If the characteristics are created by mind, and 1,000,000 people perceive a table and 99% of them (excepting those who are colour blind) perceive it as blue, why is it that they perceive the same characteristic each with their own minds?

But 999,999 people are the product of one person's mind. All there ever is, is one's own mind. There is no one "out there."

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

tiltbillings wrote:But 999,999 people are the product of one person's mind.

Steven Speilberg?

“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.” ― Ajahn Chah

tiltbillings wrote:But 999,999 people are the product of one person's mind.

Steven Speilberg?

Maybe Ignmar Bergam or David Cronenberg. I'd opt for Bergman.

One beetle recognises another.

“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.” ― Ajahn Chah

“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.” ― Ajahn Chah

Dexing wrote:As for your first question, perhaps you are more familiar with the Pali Suttas than I. Are external objects or the Form Aggregate for example ever refuted in Theravada as not being objective existence?

Interestingly, you have criticized and characterized the Theravada and the Pali suttas in terms of the Mahayana polemic against what the Mahayana calls the hinayana, but you seem not to have a real handle on what is found in the Pali suttas. In terms of realization, in terms of practice, show us where in the Pali suttas the Buddha talks about “objectively existing” khandhas?

I never said the Pali Suttas talk about "objectively existing" Aggregates, but that they don't talk about them not being objective existence. Which means the teachings in the Pali Suttas are allowing this view in order to discuss the selflessness of the Aggregates, but never affirms what ordinary beings take for granted- that the Five Aggregates are truly existent.

And as I have found, the Pali Suttas actually implicitly state the opposite, as I shall demonstrate in a following post.

tiltbillings wrote:

Dexing wrote:This is the very problem I'm trying to address. You think you can see, hear, smell, taste and touch external objects.

Color is not an external object. Sound is not an external object. Fragrance is not an external object. Flavor is not an external object. Sensation is not an external object.

But is there color, etc to be seen, etc? In what way is there color, etc? If this is all a product of the mind, then what need would there be for the other sensory organs?

Q: Is there color, etc. to be seen, etc.?A: Not objectively.

Q: In what way is there color, etc.?A: As subjective creation of consciousness.

Q: What need would there be for the other sensory organs?A: Since the eyes can't hear, the ears can't see, etc. there is a separate organ for each experience. Human beings have this result of karma to see, hear, etc. in this way. But when sleeping or dead the eyes don't see and the ears don't hear, etc.. That's because eyes and ears, etc. don't have separate consciousnesses. They are merely called such (eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, etc.) but without the cognitive-consciousness, or "mind-consciousness", the eyes, ears, etc. can't see, hear, etc.. Because it is the functioning of the one mind in six (actually eight) aspects.

Goofaholix wrote:If the characteristics are created by mind, and 1,000,000 people perceive a table and 99% of them (excepting those who are colour blind) perceive it as blue, why is it that they perceive the same characteristic each with their own minds?

Because of individual karma, as well as collective karma as human beings.

Beings of each of the Six Paths share perceptions in their particular path. Such as Humans, Animals, Devas, etc.. They all perceive differently from path to path, but similarly or the same within their paths. Those who have very closely connected karmas experience the same or similar perceptions, although it is all due to their karma not external objects. It is the movement of their minds.

Now if you you were to say they each have a different subjective experience of blue, some like blue some don't for example, I'd agree. But to say they all created the characteristic blue in their minds and that there was no stimulus for this and nothing that caused them to perceive much the same characteristic is just silly.

There is stimulus and something that caused them to perceive the same characteristics. That is karmic seeds.

But Ordinary Beings do not perceive the flow of mind and working of karma, and so attach to the experience as real external reality.